Nikon 1 V3 stock shortage prompts official apology

The Nikon 1 V3 has been out of stock with many retailers online and elsewhere, making the mirrorless camera hard to come by. The duration of the stock shortage has prompted an apology from Nikon Japan, which it recently posted on its website.

According to the statement from Nikon, the shortage is on the manufacturing end, with production failing to meet demand. Also mentioned in the apology is the DF-N1000 EVF accessory (bundled with the 1 V3 in the US but optional in other territories), which has suffered from the same out-of-stock issue due to low production capacity. As expected, Nikon says it is continuing with 'intensive production' efforts to catch up on the backlog.

Temporarily out of stock. Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your credit card will not be charged until we ship the item.

I was once a die hard FF DSLR user. I started with film SLRs so it was a natural progression. I have been fortunate to have had photos from those days on magazine covers, calendars, advertisements, etc, but I don't know if I will ever go back now. I don't have a V3, only a V1. I'm waiting for the V3 body only at a lower price as I already have 3 lenses. Each of those lenses were less than my cheapest FF SLR lens. I own the 10mm f/2.8, 18mm f/1.8, and the original kit lens. I also have the SB-N5 Speedlight and panoramic head. My entire kit fits inside a lunch bag sized ThinkTank bag that I used to use just to carry my Speedlights and filters. The convenience of such a small system is tremendous. Even my lightweight Gitzo carbon fiber "Traveler" tripod is overkill for my kit. The only way I'd go back to DSLR where if items like batteries and memory cards were cross compatible with the V3 and they made a Df like camera actually as small as the FM it supposedly conjures.

And I agree with vFunct. I have been able to get extremely high quality photos from my old V1. Granted, not quite as good as my D700 photos at high ISO. But even for professional work, I wouldn't hesitate using my V1 for anything requiring up to ISO 800. For me to upgrade to the V3, however, I would like to have at least 1 stop of improvement in high ISO performance compared to the V1 or performance approaching the D700, as that is the camera my V1 effectively replaced now that my D700 has died ;-(

With these small sensor cameras, the manufacturers seem to think consumers are more apt at sacrificing image quality than megapixels. They have it wrong. I think for people who carry a small, interchangeable lens camera, they are by nature those who want high quality in a small package, i.e., high image quality, smaller file. 12 MP would've been fine for me if it had cleaner files. About 1-2 stops cleaner.

Why does a manufacturer have to apologize for failing to meet demand? I would assume they would spin it as "greatly exceeded sales expectations and we're hurrying to meet such unprecedented popularity."

"Out of stock" is normal for new products. Just name of few that when I ordered Pana LX7, Nexus tablet, Chromecast, they were all out of stock. Panasonic and Google did not prompt apology, why should they?

What's wrong with the articulating LCD? I like that feature. I like the touch screen too. You can buy a really good prime lens for it, if you don't like the new, very good quality, zoom lens. I think maybe you're joking, but I can't tell. Maybe a wink would have helped me "get" it.

Too much ado about the V3's "tiny sensor." It's all relative, you know. Compared to P & Shoot sensors, it's huge. Same thing, most superzooms.Sony has shown the world what can me achieved with their 1" sensors in their very capable RX100III and RX10 models.

the only thing nikon did by this shortage. is opend the people eyes to the M/43.and yes the N1 is a good fun easy to carry around camera. most people who like this camera are tired from carrying the 15lb+ bag. and these huge lenses. so yes its a good choice for outdoor camping sport and wildlife . and most importantly a small lens and camera form factor .with a good image Qi BUT.if. some of M43 did get better or even close to N1 video and burst image capabilities. nikon is gonna have a real problem. so they need to do somthing about it fast. people who left DSLR for N1 are not going back to DSLR. I'm almost certain they will go for M43. and they probably did already. and i think the next card they'll gonna play is price.

I think the m4/3 cameras are all limited to 16 MP at the moment, right? The V3 is 18 MP. That alone will draw people AWAY from m4/3 . . . toward 1" sensor cameras. Sony and Samsung are making 20 MP cameras with 1" sensors now. 1" may be the next 4/3 . . . except that there is no big group of manufacturers building lenses that are compatible with multiple brands. Still . . . Nikon makes a LOT of lenses, which are compatible with the V3, when used with the adapter. And Nikon is proving they're serious about the 1 system. This shortage is proof that their commitment shows. Hopefully now they'll make an even greater commitment, and make another camera with a fold-out screen and a few more small, high-quality lenses for the 1 system.

the v3 is the only mirrorless camera (as far as i know)that could do slow motion. 1280 x 720 (120 fps),768 x 288 (400 fps)416 x 144 (1200 fps)for the people who need this! the n1 v3 offers something unique. one of the major weaknesses is the DOF and sadly its not gonna be cheap to correct this by using a fast lens. and that already proven in the m43... new Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 have the same DOF of a full fram lens at f2.8 and it cost a $2,299.00

Compact/P&S cameras are dead there is no doubt about it due to mobile phones and far more capable and similar sized mirorrless cameras.DSLR are past their apex due to nearly-as-capable and much more compact mirorrless cameras.

The cellphone workflow far outshines the small compact cameras. Take picture, quick adjustment, send it to your mom. Soon or later bigger cameras will have to compete with that workflow, the current wifi features are abysmal at best.

Compacts with large sensors, zoom lenses, and fold-out screens, like the Sony RX100 II and RX100 III, will continue to sell well, and gain market share. Mirrorless is gaining on the DSLR market for many reasons, but it will be a long time before mirrorless kills the DSLR completely. Some day though, DSLR cameras will be so obsolete that people will look at them the way most people look at large format cameras today. How long it will take is anyone's guess. It depends how quickly Nikon and Canon make the move to mirrorless, the way Sony is doing now. If they follow, with good options for pros, then it will happen quickly. If not . . . then it won't. It could take 20 years . . . or it could take about 3 years. I'd bet in 5 years it will be happening, and in 10 years the transition is complete . . . but that may just be progressive thinking. We still haven't put a base on the moon, and we were talking about doing that more than 40 years ago.

Do you argue as much over the best bread or cheese, and as stupidly. THis is a camera review/product placement site, just as the BBC radio1 is for pop and Radio 3 is for classical. On sites and channels like this revenue is generated by publicizing stuff-it's not rocket science peoples. At least Nikon say sorry. Aldi pulls my favourite products regularly without any apology whatsoever.

In the West all of you appear to have lost your manners.

When you have made the contribution to our culture that Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Sony certainly have, then and ONLY then should you raise your voices again.

Seriously? So "my culture" has to succeed in something, making a huge contribution to it, in order for me to talk about it? What kind of B.S. is THAT?!? The U.S. practically INVENTED the camera. Germany, France, and England helped (and possibly Switzerland and a few others contributed too, right?). Japan has done a lot for the world of photography . . . to so have many other countries. We're all in this together. I don't know what you're so upset about, but give it a break. Getting all worked up because a few people act rude on the Web is pretty silly, don't you think? If you can't handle it, maybe you should stop visiting forums. BTW, contributing does not give you a pass. The U.S. has contributed a VAST amount of technology, but did Kodak get a pass, just because they're Kodak? NO. And they don't deserve one. They screw up . . . they hear about it. That's the way it SHOULD be. Keeping quiet would be doing them a disservice . . . keeping them in the dark, when they need feedback.

No young man the french and the english created photography. And film. My objection is that bad manners rudeness and bad language, and confused babble like yours miss the point of a forum, or posting on one at all. This is not a teenage chatroom for nerds to grunt incomprehensibly at each other.

O.K. professor. Presumably you're referring to Herschel, Talbot, Niépce and Daguerre, but it all depends on what you mean. Arguably, the Chinese invented the camera obscura, which was the beginning of photography . . . or was it? I think it's those who made photography popular and a seriously usable thing, that should be credited, and that was many people in a number of countries. If it were not for Homberg, would we have ever had film? Kodak was king for a century, and brought photography to the masses, through the popularization of roll film. No, George Eastman did not invent the camera. Who knows who could be truly credited with such an invention. Who invented electricity or the wheel? (The Egyptians used electricity thousands of years ago.) This is why I wrote that the U.S. "practically INVENTED the camera" . . . got it? Maybe I should have used the word "popularized" instead. Still, I stand corrected . . . cameras may have been a European invention.

Wrong. You haven't done the math. The extras the camera comes with make it a very good deal. This is likely why it's selling so well. If you were to buy the camera kit in the U.S. today, you could sell the extras for less than what they sell for retail, and then you would have only about $750 in the camera, which is about what the V2 sells for now. Then, if you want, you could sell the viewfinder for about $250 and have only $500 in the new camera. I'd probably buy two kits, if I had the money, and sell all the accessories from one. When they first released it, the camera came with the adapter to put Nikon DSLR lenses on it. Selling that would make the camera even cheaper. It was an amazing bargain at its introduction. Don't forget . . . the V3 is a MAJOR upgrade from the V2. (about 30% more pixels, a fold-out touch screen, wi-fi, better focus system, faster memory card slot, improved viewfinder, and more).

Actually it is. A 1" sensor is much bigger than the 1/2.3" sensor in many compact cameras, and would be one reaon many buyers would purchase the V3. Another reason is the fact that it has interchangeable lenses, so the "idiots" you're talking about can get those shots that the bigger sensor will let them get (i.e. a wide-angle shot equivalent to 20mm on a full-frame camera - their point-and-shoot could only do 24mm equivalent angle). Those same amateur photographers, when stepping into the house they're selling or the cathedral they're visiting, will wish they had spent more money to get that Nikon D610 with the really expensive 14-24mm lens. Not for long though, because they like the portability of the little V3 and a couple of tiny lenses.

I just compared the Nikon V3 image at ISO 1600 with NR off and an RX10 at ISO 1600 with NR off and the RX10 is sharper, but with more grain. The V3 image has less noise but is not as sharp (could it be the lens?). I would call image quality not that much different between the two.

Something of a new gold standard in wingnuttery, even for dpreview comments.

Appeals to logic are going to be useless, I realize that, but here we go: an official public announcement on your own website is not a "leak". It's, um, a public announcement which will be read mostly by industry and relayed by industry news outlets like dpreview if it is deemed to be of wider interest.

V3 premium kit is out of stock. You don't need an apology from Nikon to figure out that for a new camera to be out of stock, it means people want to buy it. I also hope you don't buy a camera based on whether other people want to buy it, but anyway, the only thing backfiring here is Nikon's supply chain management for Nikon 1 camera accessories.

i dont think this has much to do with more demand. from the wording, it seems to be an apology for slower than expected production. as in they estimated to have X amount in stock by Y date but production delays made the camera more scarce than intended. had they met the predicted X shipments/stock, there would be no cause for an apology.

Well Nikon didn't admin having problems with the D800.Still there are plenty of people that have (had) problems with the AF points to the left side of the camera and as a result were getting oof pictures.

But they finally did indeed apologize for problems with the D600, only because a class action lawsuit was being prepared and China demanded Nikon to stop sales of the D600.

Seems to be the EVF that's holding everything up. You can the other versions in Japan really easily, but the premium kit is generally out of stock.

Despite being out of stock, its currently no 32 on the best seller list at kakaku.com in the "dSLR" category (yes, all ILCs are lumped in with dSLRs here). The non-EVF, cheaper SKUs are at 86 and 160... so it is in fact the most expensive model that is the best seller, and it would no doubt be selling even better if it was more widely available. (for comparison, Nikon Df is no. 25)

Conclusion: V3 demand is moderately strong and steady going into the forth month since release.

So you can get one extra lens for the same money, but the camera is 16 MP instead of 18 MP, weighs about 30% more, is much larger, doesn't have a removable viewfinder, shoots slow as molasses, compared to the Nikon, can't auto-focus with Nikon's vast line of lenses, etc. etc. Oh . . . and the GX1 . . . weighs about the same, but has not viewfinder included, has no fold-out screen, etc. etc. NO COMPARISON. Sorry. But maybe you're talking about the Panasonic GX7. THAT's a nice little camera, but only costs $100 less, weighs more, and doesn't have a removable viewfinder or a touch screen. And it has, ". . . the ability to record up 5 fps in full resolution . . . " Wow! None of these so-called competitors even comes close in shooting speed. The Nikon V3 shoots full-resolution photos at up to 60 fps! THAT makes it special.

I meant the GX7, not the GX1, but the V3 is still way over-priced. How often do you need to shoot high fps? I mean really. A built in VF makes the camera smaller and by the time you buy a VF for the V3, you might as well buy A APS-C SLR to do high fps and I would rather buy a Sony Rx10 or a Panasonic FZ100 for a cheaper price. Also Nikon's VF is twice the price of a Olympus VF. I love Nikon and have a FF Nikon, but as I have said before...1 Big Failure By Nikon.

I really don't understand why every time a Nikon 1 is launched it's bombarded with unnecessary comments.. I think those who are not convinced in this system won't get it even if it's worth 400$ as much as I am not interested in a Sony E mount for less money ... Those who find the V3 is an expensive cam can just skip and go buy a SONY or whatever it is ... and I know that most of the Nikon 1 owners agree with me here ... Cheers everyone ...

I think people are offended by Nikon's 1 system. I think they have mirrorless envy syndrome. They want a Nikon mirrorless camera, but they don't want one with a diminutive little 1" sensor. Their feelings come out in the form of rage against the 1 system, and with good reason, because Nikon is asking prices akin to what they SHOULD be asking for a line of mirrorless cameras with APS-C size sensors, which could compete against Sony's NEX 5, NEX-6, and NEX-7 cameras. Instead Nikon gives them the 1 system, which does NOT make them happy. They feel it should be priced like the toy they think it is. They don't like the image quality from it, and they bought Nikon cameras and lenses to get good image quality.

It's not so much the sensor, it's the lack of will and effort. I'd be ok with an 1" system if a compelling system was built around it.

Nikon tries a bit harder than Canon, they make a few more camera bodies and lenses, offer some interesting features but not the kind of gun-blazzing support you'd expect from a giant of photography. And then they expect you to pay an arm and a leg for a system you feel they were dragged kicking and screaming into making.

I'm constantly amused by so many armchair experts pontificating to whichever manufacturer how to fix their cameras and pricing to make them sell, and then just carry on with their mantra regardless when, guess what, the camera sells as-is, due - but of course - to a gullible public who sadly lack the archair experts' expertise and tragically don't realise that they should be buying a different camera at a different price.

Thing is, if the armchair expert happens to be a potential customer, their "expertise" really does matter.

Over and over, the Japanese have shown their mastery of understanding the mindset of western markets. When you work with them, especially in the photo industry, you realize they have a complete understanding of the North American/European/Australian customer.

Actually, I think Red is doing quite well. So is Black Magic . . . I think. Though I really don't know if they are really making cameras or just contracting Eastern camera makers to make them. Sometimes I wonder if a company could actually make something like a camera in the U.S.A. and be profitable. I would bet Apple could make their computers in the U.S.A. and be profitable . . . but they don't. That seems both sensible and wrong at the same time. GoPro gets their cameras made by FoxCon in Asia. Until I learned that I actually thought, "Wow! An American company really CAN compete!" I think it could be done. Germany does it. Elon Musk could make it happen.

The real apology would be embarrassing for Nikon.You can't tell your customers:

We are sorry that our mirrorless system isn't for sale anywhere.Our suppliers don't dare to stock our camera's.They feel afraid that our Nikon 1 V3 mirrorless camera can not be sold and therefore they don't want to take the risk that this camera will stay on the shelves and collecting dust in their camera store forever.

We feel sorry that we have made a non-attractive product, though we feel delighted that at least few people still do take interest in Nikon products even if they are underspecced and not taken seriously by our marketing department.

I can't imagine this camera will really have a huge demand. I expect a fire sale in about a year. There are cheaper bodies that offer more for the average photographer. Yes, if you need 60fps - this is the only game in town. But most people dont.

You forgot about MEGA long range . . . and ultra-light weight . . . and instantaneous focus. Shooting macro, sports, and even wildlife with the V3 will be a joy and much more productive for many. Try a fisheye, like the 10-17mm from Tokina, using the adapter, and you'll have a very interesting little camera for shooting all sorts of subject matter, like skateboarders, cathedrals, eyeballs, etc. The V3 is a creative photographer's dream camera. You should try it.

I did try it. For almost a year. Yes, there are some unique things about it. But in the end, the IQ was just too low - specifically the dynamic range. I am sure this camera will find some niche that it does well in. But for me, and I think for average general photography, this body does not have it where it counts.

I agree with you about the dynamic range . . . but I guess that's what you pay to have the incredible speed of 60 fps at 18 MP. I wish Nikon would give the V3 a bigger buffer . . . though I wish Nikon put a bigger buffer in just about every one of their cameras . . . especially the D7100 and the D5300. The resolution of the 18 MP images from the V3 isn't bad . . . but it's not as good as the 16 MP images from the D7000 or a Canon 7 D either. It's definitely as good as or better than what I've seen from m4/3 cameras though. Too bad the dynamic range and noise performance isn't as good. Then again, the 2.7 crop factor and tiny size of the cameras makes the 1" sensor a good compromise for many. A little V3 with it's lens and an adapter make it a perfect extra for a sports shooter. Hell . . . if I was shooting sports, the V3 with the new 70-300 would probably be my go-to camera. Sure, I'd have a D300s with a 70-200mm f2.8 VR II, if I could afford it . . . too.

I don't know who's buying these or how many were made but at least Nikon is addressing the situation. Of course, in true Nikon form they're giving themselves a pat on the back by saying it's so good, we're sorry we can't keep up. But it's a step.

blue - slower continous shooting - yesSlower AF - we don't know that - no direct comparison done"friendlier with telecentric lenses" - yes, if you mean it has a much smaller sensor - true. Whether that is important only you can decide. I prefer wide friendly sensors myself.

Brownie, it's not just the cropped sensor, it's the lenses to take advantage of it.

On paper, the Sony A7's are wide angle friendly, but no native lens go wider than 24mm so far. You can go the legacy glass route, but there are nasty surprizes, particularly with glass from the film days.

I guess if IQ is the be all and end all to you then this isn't the camera for you. I put usability much higher tbh. The more comfortable a camera is and the easier it is to change key settings, the more good pictures I get. 'Tis why I love my GH3 so much.

The camera has the fastest AF on the market, matching that of Nikon and Canon's most professional DLSRs. Sensor aside, the price is justifiable. The only thing outclassing the IQ of this sensor is APS-C at the moment.

The other 1" sensor'd cameras (RX10, RX100, FZ1000) outperform the 1" sensor used in the V3 by a healthy margin. There are compact P&S cameras that are on par with the V3 in terms of IQ (S120, G16, P340, etc). With the kind of deficit the V3 has in terms of IQ, the pricing should be more competitive. As it is, the pricing isn't remotely competitive. It's $500 more than a RX100 mk3, $300 more than an FZ1000, $200 more than an RX10 and many, many times more expensive than the P&S cameras with which it shares many IQ qualities. All that for a little faster AF and poorer IQ? That's absurd.

AngryCorgi, I don't know what comparison you've been looking at but looking at the studio scene here the J3 (used as I can't see the V3 in the new comparison tool), clearly out performs the compact cameras you've mentioned at every single ISO and is IMO no worse than the RX100 mk III. The fact that it can use faster lenses easily makes up for the possible minute difference.

Set the comparison tool to ISO1600 with the J3, FZ1000, G16, and RX100-III. Set the quality to "Print" and walk around the image. The G16 is closer to the J3 than the J3 is to either of the competing 1" sensors. This is just SNR. The color accuracy and dynamit range are also poorer than its competitors.

i dont hate the 1 series like some ppl but come on, you're talking about paying that price for handling and ergonomics? you're better off getting an OMD and still have enough left for glass. you still get supern af, superb IQ AND handling and ergonomics are better all around.

this particular camera may fill a niche for some ppl but frankly the price does not justify whatever you get with this camera.

about the only thing it is competitive on is AF speed and FPS burst. at $400 i'd consider it a good buy. at $1000++, no way in hell. not when the competition outclasses it in nearly every respect and does it at better prices.

Raw or JPG, both show an advantage to the RX100 and FZ1000. It's blatently clear. The chroma noise on the raw images show a significant advantage to the sony and panasonic. The only difference elsewise is the obvious fact that the Nikon has no AA filter, whilst the other two do. To clean up that chroma noise (as the JPG engine does) causes a dulling of colors and softening of the image. You can compare raw, which makes sense, but you have to think about how your process is going to differ and affect the final IQ.

You are free to disagree. I only have my eyes to show me and they show greater chroma noise. I'd state that this is reinforced by DXOMark testing, but you are probably one of those "DXOMark takes money from [insert name] to skew results" type people. Unfortunately, the chroma noise the J3 (and all aptina 1" sensors) shows is that ugly yellow staining. It's a low-frequency noise that requires desaturation of other yellow colors in the photo elsewhere to correct. Similar things occur with it's competitors, but they do so only at higher sensitivity settings.

Thanks for your sentences, but my post was directed @the one immediately before it(speaking about APS sensor size). I do agree 100% with you that it is indeed na absolutely ridiculous HUGE price to pay for a camera with a TINY TINY sensor and a TINY lens!!! But natural for canikon the fact that size of the sensor impacts on it's price is only valid for when they want to sell a FF one! ):(Just like Sony proves by selling the a camera with the SAME sensor for half the price nikon does! :LBut coming back to this camera: it is the WORST case anywhere of wrong price for sensor size...that at least until hasselblad decides to rebrand one, or leica to put it inside aluminium and say the lenses are non-software corrected and release them not fully working! I guess they would ask for some 1800$ minimum, nikon would try the same, the fanboys would be all in heaven wasting their Money, and we could quietly buy an APS for LESS or even (hopefully)the next generation of full frame! ;D

The Nikon 1 system has its place. Neither Nikon nor Canon are about to alienate their DSLR users or kill their lens lines at the moment. Instead they'll continue to evolve their systems. Nikon seems to be doing more than Canon. In fact, Nikon is doing a better job of developing an extensive line of mirrorless than most companies are. I'm going to guess that next (in a year or two) they'll make a larger sensor that is smaller than APS-C. It could be a 1.8x sensor, making it bigger in some respects than m4/3, but smaller than APS-C. It will work with all the DSLR lenses with an adapter, like the 1 system. It could be called the 2 system. It too will be fast (just as fast as the 1 system). At first it will be expensive, like $1,500 for the camera with a kit lens. It will do everything the 1 system can do and a little more. Since the sensor is much bigger, it will gain more acceptance from people who own a Nikon DSLR. By then the full-frame DSLR cameras will be more popular and cheaper.

The end of the full-frame DSLR is a serious problem for Nikon. They need to figure out what they're going to do about their line of lenses. They might be ready now though. I guess we'll see. It might be a lot easier than anyone thinks. It could be as simple as designing one or two lenses each year, placing them in prototype mode, and waiting until the time is right to introduce their new, bigger, mirrorless line of cameras. Maybe they'll be weather sealed. Maybe they'll have under-water capability, like the AW1 (all of them). Maybe they'll have a built-in Web browser with a 5" touch screen. Only time will tell, but I think they're coming . . . somewhere out there on the horizon.

Why do people hate this camera so much? If I was to get more involved with my wildlife shooting, which often due to my other hobbies involves long hikes, I would definitely get one along with an FX adapter.

The alternative systems are FF, which would be way to big and heavy for my needs. APS-C, which isn't much better or m43 (which I currently have) which is lacking in decent long lenses.

Just because it might not be worth it to you it doesn't mean it's not worth it to other people.

Actually, the competition for wildlife use is the Panasonic FZ1000, which uses a better sensor and comes with a 25-400mm Leica-branded lens. Sure, its not the same quality as an adapted Nikkor 70-200/f4, but, should be good enough.

Having said that, if the price were lower, I would pick one up just to mess around with my Nikkors. This with the 24-70/2.8 would be a lot of fun (basically a 70-200 in FF terms).

I've heard various thoughts on what the Leica name means on panasonic lenses (mainly the m43 ones).

Anything from they run the design by Leica, or that it has to be up to Leica QC standards, or even that Leica employees do the QC (although I bet you if this is true that they work in the same factory, get paid the same and eat in the same cafeteria as all the panasonic employees =) )

Higuel, for you maybe it is too expensive, clearly for other people it's worth equal to or greater than what nikon have priced at. Stop bitching just because other people have different tastes/bigger wallets.

They Nikon V3 with the new, little 70-300mm lens that's made for it is equivalent to an 18 MP full-frame camera with an 810mm lens. It weighs in at about 2 lbs. It costs about $2,000. Yes, the Panasonic FZ1000 is cheaper, but it has about half the magnification power at long distances, and it can't shoot fast. You can't change its lens to a fisheye either. It's heavy . . . weighing almost as much as the V3 with the long lens on it . . . but you can put a 10-30mm lens on the Nikon V3 and carry it around all day without noticing it hanging on your shoulder. Because the Panasonic is twice the weight, it is a little more noticeable . . . though not much. To me the key is versatility, and while the Panasonic is very versatile, there's no substitute for an interchangeable lens system.

Do you even know what you are talking about ? The V3 image quality is not inferior to the EMP2. In fact, the performance of the 1 inch sensor is better (better dynamic range in highlights, tighter noise performance, realistic color rendition). The EMP2 is garbage, I had one - poor build, poor Af, poor LCD.

The only people buying these crappy m43 cameras are old people on these forums, I have yet to see one in public.

retro76, I don't know where you are but around Edinburgh I see quite a few m43 cameras, more Olympus in the hands of Japanese tourists and older american folk, along with Panasonics normally seen in the hands of younger UK people.

They're also used by a large number of indy film makers and have even been reported being used on large budget productions, such as episodes of top gear.

V3 is bigger and much heavier than E-PM2, but, despite the heft, has just half the sensor, does not have IBIS and have lower battery life. And just as lowly E-PM2, does not have built-in EVF and has just one speaker and mechanical shutter with only 1/250s X-sync (it is not like the shutter in E-P5 or anything). All that heft, price, and 2 extra years of development and they still cannot beat that cheap lowly Olympus. ;)

Thank you peevee1, you just proved my points. I actually have written raw conversion software, so I do know a thing or two about dynamic range. There is such a thing as highlight dynamic range, it's the range above the midtone point, some camera's deal with this area better than others. You noted DXOs score which is problematic and proves my point: How much of the dynamic range is in the shadows vs. highlights ? You also note the DXO color score, this score isn't about color accuracy, it's about color depth which are two different things. Everyone including dpreview notes that while Olympus color is attractive (subjective), it's also not accurate. Noise is also a problem, you can see visible smearing at high ISO on Olympus sensors whereas Nikon shows a very tight grain pattern (film like) which is more easily dealt with in post. DXO scores are flawed but it's no use, people follow the pied piper, no one thinks for themselves anymore.

"while Olympus color is attractive (subjective), it's also not accurate."

What a BS:1) color perception is subjective2) What you see depends on your media, not just on your camera3) Olympus JPEG engine has so many configuration parameters, you can get whatever colors you want.

The fact is the fact, the Sony sensor in E-PM2 beats the Aptina sensor in Nikon senseless in what if can capture, the Aptina is way behind in noise at any ISO and of course both in shadows and highlights (see DR vs 18% noise graphs). And for each color tone the Nikon is able to capture, the Olympus is able to distinguish 4.

"Dear consumers,Considering how expensive this camera is we really didn't think that many people would buy it. We are sorry that we didn't produce enough to meet demand. At least now we know that we don't have to bundle it with the grip and EVF like we do in the US because apparently you will buy it at this high price.

We've just completed our full review of the Nikon 1 V3, that manufacturer's enthusiast mirrorless camera. The V3 offers an 18.4 megapixel 1"-type CMOS sensor, a significant gain in resolution over its 14.2 megapixel V2 predecessor. Since its introduction the 1 system has offered impressive auto focus and burst shooting capabilities - see just how well it performed in our testing. Read review

Since the original 1 V1, AF and continuous shooting speed have been a standout feature in Nikon's mirrorless offering for users who want interchangeable lens versatility in a small form factor. The 1 V3 makes a large step toward being a true enthusiast-oriented camera with the addition of features such as twin control dials, two customizable function buttons (a third if using the add-on grip) and a new 18MP 1"-type sensor with no AA filter. Add to that a high-performance hybrid contrast and phase detect AF system, a new Expeed 4A processor, and you have a very capable camera for most shooting situations.

The Nikon 1 V3 offers an 18.4 megapixel 1"-type CMOS sensor, a significant gain in resolution over its 14.2 megapixel V2 predecessor. It also offers impressive 20 fps burst shooting with continuous AF and a Hybrid AF system using 171 contrast-detect and 105 phase-detect points. The V3 might just be the most promising mirrorless camera Nikon has offered enthusiasts yet, and our full review is well underway. In the meantime, take a look at our first impressions and shooting experience. Read more

Update: Amidst a slew of announcements yesterday, Adobe also made final release versions of Camera Raw and DNG Converter 8.5 available for download. A few new cameras are now supported including the Canon Powershot G1 X Mark II, Olympus OM-D E-M10, Panasonic GH4 and Sony Cyber-shot RX100 III. Camera Raw 8 users with Photoshop CS6 will get new camera support, lens profiles and bug fixes, but a few new features are added for Photoshop CC subscribers. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.